– cites precedent from higher court

THE State will soon be initiating legal proceedings to appeal the Senior Magistrate’s decision to dismiss the case against the former Finance Minister, despite a binding precedent from a higher court.

This was disclosed by General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), Bharrat Jagdeo, during a weekly press conference on Thursday.

On Tuesday, during the paper committal hearing at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, Magistrate Daly upheld the argument of Jordan’s lawyers that their client did not meet the definition of a ‘Public Officer,’ which was a crucial element of the indictment.

It was alleged that, while serving as Finance Minister under the APNU+AFC coalition government, Jordan committed willful misconduct by acting recklessly when he signed the NICIL (Transfer of Property) Order, No. 50 of 2020. NICIL, the government’s holding company, fell under Jordan’s ministerial portfolio.

The substantive matter relates to Jordan transferring and vesting to BK Marine Inc. all buildings, erections, stellings, platforms, and further appurtenances at Mud Lots One and Two, F of Mud Lot Three, A, B and D, being over 2.553 acres.

In that transaction, it was reported that $20,260,276 was paid for a property initially valued at over $5,000,000,000. The selling price was reportedly grossly below the actual value of the assets sold.

The prosecution argued that amounted to abusing the public’s trust without reasonable excuse or justification. Jordan’s lawyers had contested that their client was not a ‘Public Officer’.
However, Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) Prosecutor, Neville Jeffers, previously submitted that Chief Justice Roxane George addressed the precedent in the case of Winston Brassington and Dr. Ashni Singh versus the Chief Magistrate.

In that case, Dr. Singh, who was also a finance minister, was considered to be a Public Officer, and Article 232 of the Constitution of Guyana provides that a ‘Public Officer’ means the holder of any public office and includes any person appointed to act in such an office.

Nevertheless, Magistrate Daly, after going through the evidence in the case upheld the lawyer’s submission and found that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that Jordan met the criteria of a ‘Public Officer.’

She concluded that Jordan’s role was that of a ‘Minister’ and not a ‘Public Officer.’

Jagdeo, however, said that he finds it odd that the Magistrate stayed away from the ruling despite the Chief Justice ruled-in keeping with the constitution- finding that the Minister of Finance is a ‘public officer.’

He added that the two cases are almost identical in both facts and law and clearly, the learned Magistrate erred in law by refusing to follow the decision of the learned Chief Justice.
“…the law courts have to abide by precedent set by higher courts. And so, it seems as-I don’t want to say anything that may seem disparaging of any person in the judiciary- but it seems as though there are two sets of criteria on which you judge and that shouldn’t be,” Dr Jagdeo said.

Meanwhile, Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall had said that the learned Magistrate predicated her ruling on a finding in law that as Minister of Finance, Mr Jordan was not a Public Officer, an important ingredient in the offence.

“Such an elementary, egregious error” Nandlall said has excited great public concern and might shake the public confidence in the administration of justice.

“For to the public, it appears that there are different standards being applied to different persons by the administration of justice. Needless to say that by this decision of the Magistrate, this accused walks free after vesting title of a state asset valued at over US $40 million to a private company for which the State received a mere US $100,000; worse yet, this was done months after the government of which he was part, had already lost the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, but remained in government for five months thereafter,” Nandlall had said.